Tenant Misunderstood Order's Standard Language

February 1, 2005

LVT Number: 17898

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenant complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord later applied for rent restoration based on restoration of services. The DHCR ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed, claiming that the DRA ordered him to pay back rent retroactive to the year the rent reduction order was issued. The DHCR ruled against tenant. Tenant misunderstood the DRA's order.

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenant complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord later applied for rent restoration based on restoration of services. The DHCR ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed, claiming that the DRA ordered him to pay back rent retroactive to the year the rent reduction order was issued. The DHCR ruled against tenant. Tenant misunderstood the DRA's order. The order merely informs landlord and tenant of the amount of the restored rent.

Kessock: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. SI210026RT (1/27/05) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

SI210026RT.pdf113.71 KB

Topics

More like this